Flores v. Cueva
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-09174
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Flores v. Cueva, Judge Breyer let Flores proceed without filing fees and ordered the state to respond to his habeas claims.
Erasmo Flores and Daniel Cueva, the acting warden identified as respondent; the order also directed service on the Attorney General of California as respondent’s attorney.
What happened
In Flores v. Cueva, Erasmo Flores, a state prisoner, asked a federal court to review his conviction and sentence. He claimed the state trial court violated his rights by refusing to let him withdraw his plea and by imposing fines without deciding whether he could pay them.
Flores filed the case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. He had pleaded no contest and received a 15-year state-prison sentence; California’s appellate courts had rejected his earlier challenges.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Flores’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and ordered Daniel Cueva, the acting warden, to respond within 60 days. The order did not decide whether Flores’s claims would succeed.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Cueva · No. 3:22-cv-09174
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
Erasmo Flores, identified in the case as a state prisoner incarcerated at California Medical Facility, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for federal review of custody under a state-court judgment—under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged a conviction and sentence from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Flores represented himself and also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Flores had pleaded no contest to one count of oral copulation with a child under 14 by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, and one count of a lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14 by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear. Before sentencing, he asked to withdraw his plea, but the trial court denied that request. On August 1, 2019, the court sentenced him to the agreed-upon term of 15 years in state prison. The California Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, and the California Supreme Court denied review on October 13, 2021.
Claims
Flores raised two claims. First, he argued that the trial court violated due process by denying his request to withdraw his plea. Second, he argued that the trial court violated due process by imposing fines without finding that he had the ability to pay them. The court stated that, liberally construed, the claims appeared potentially eligible for review under Section 2254 and warranted a response from the respondent.
Ruling and next steps
The court granted Flores’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It ordered the clerk to serve the order on Daniel Cueva, identified as the acting warden, and on the Attorney General of California as the respondent’s attorney. The respondent must file and serve an answer within 60 days explaining why the writ should not be granted. The respondent may instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If an answer is filed, Flores may respond within 30 days after receiving it. If a motion to dismiss is filed, the order sets deadlines for Flores’s opposition and the respondent’s reply.
Judge Charles R. Breyer’s order did not decide the merits of either claim. It required the case to proceed to the response stage.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.